Madhya Pradesh High Court
Abhiyoktri W/O Shri Manish Singh ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19962 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. ABHIYOKTRI W/O SHRI MANISH SINGH
BHADORIYA D/O SHRI KISHAN PRAJAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
ADVOCATE R/O- GRAM SENTHARI SONI
POLICE THANA MEHGAON DISTRICT BHIND
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANISH SINGH BHADORIYA S/O SHRI HOM
SINGH BHADORIYA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SASKIYA SEWAK R/O- GRAM
SENTHARI SONI POLICE THANA MEHGAON
DISTRICT BHIND M.P. AT PRESENT
RESIDENT OF QUATER NO.102, C-5 13
BATALIYAN, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI ARUN PATERYA - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1)
(BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.2)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION- PRABHARI ADHIKARI
POLICE THANA KAMPOO, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA SINGH KUSHWAHA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL)
This application coming on for hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
2
ORDER
The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed at
the instant of petitioner No.1 against the petitioner No.2 for quashment of
FIR vide Crime No.339/2020 and after filing of charge-sheet, matter is
pending before the VI Additional Sessions Judge, vide S.T. No.395/2020 in
which allegations are in respect of offence under Sections 376, 294, 506 of
IPC.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that alongwith this petition, an
application under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. has also been preferred in
which both the parties have referred the fact that both shared
emotional/physical proximity. Because of some personal dispute crept into
their relationship, allegations were levelled by the petitioner No.1
(Prosecutrix) against the petitioner No.2 (Accused). Now they are living as
married couple and blessed with a girl child who is 6 months of age.
Therefore, in the interest of family and their relationship they want to settle
the matter once and for all.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that both the petitioners were in relationship for some years and when
relationship turned soured then petitioner No.1 filed a complaint against the
petitioner No.2 in which all these proceedings were drawn. Now the good
sense prevailed over the parties and they are reunited. Since they are living
as happily married couple and blessed with a child and it is not the case
which reflects mental depravity and mens rea to perform crime, therefore, a
chance may be given for course correction so that family may be saved from
the wrath of prosecution.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Apex
Court in the case of Jatin Agarwal Vs. State of Telangana and another
[SLP (Cr.) No.9568/2021] in which vide judgment dated 21.03.2022, Apex
Court considered in similarly facts and circumstances of the case about
prospects of parties, married life, quashed the FIR and consequential
proceedings. They also referred another judgment of Apex Court in the case
of K. Dhandapani Vs. The State by the Inspector of Police [SLP (Cr.)
No.9698/2019] in which vide judgment dated 09.05.2022, Apex Court
considered the necessary contours of such type of cases and held that
looking to the ground reality and the fact that parties are living happily as
married couple as well as in family mould, criminal case was quashed.
5. Learned Deputy Advocate General opposed the prayer, however;
could not dispute the fact and informed this court on the basis of charge-
sheet that petitioner No.1 is a practicing lawyer and petitioner No.2 is a
police constable.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
appended thereto.
7. This is a case where petitioner No.1 (Prosecutrix) and petitioner No.2
(Accused) have reflected their unanimity again by filing the application
under Section 320(2) of the Cr.P.C.. Earlier they were in live-in-relationship
and stayed together for some time. Thereafter when said relationship turned
soured, then wheel of time grinded the parties. Later on, both realized the
mistake and reunited. Marriage was solemnized and thereafter, they are
living peacefully as married couple and blessed with a child.
8. Even otherwise, perusal of the allegations indicate that the case was
mainly refusal of marriage at the instance of petitioner No.2 after living for
some time in live-in-relationship. It is not the case where lust guided the
accused to over power prosecutrix for his wanton act. It was not the case of
mental depravity or perversity. Facts of the case also reflects that both are
living as married couple and therefore, it would be too harsh if proceedings
are continued because this may disrupt family life of the parties and
specially when both are blessed with a child. Now it is their duty to nurture
the child with company, compassion and care.
9. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is a
case where marriage was solemnized prior to filing of the FIR but accepted
later on by Accused, therefore, it is not the case of regular mental depravity
and moral turpitude like other cases. Accused deserves to get benefit of
clean acquittal. Taking guidance from the aforesaid judgments rendered by
the parties of Apex Court as well as the fact that some other High Courts,
High Court of Kerala in the case of Binu Vs. State of Keral and another in
Criminal Appeal No.7153/2018 vide order dated 10.01.2019 and Division
Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Durgesh Nishad and others
Vs. State of U.P. In Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1483/2023 vide order
dated 02.03.2023, this Court intends to allow the application for
compromise. The said compromise would give the petitioners a chance to
live peacefully in married life.
10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and crime No.339/2020 as well as
Sessions Trial No.395/2020 pending before the concerned trial court are
hereby quashed.
11. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in above terms.
(ANAND PATHAK)
Rashid JUDGE
RASHID
Digitally signed by RASHID KHAN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=23377d7d214c811801fc322b576ca4ed1954237f6
324416af3985b5e9940ed42,
KHAN
pseudonym=D0D045404B6F6AB1225B3600B86B72153386
BADD,
serialNumber=111CC474A72B078DC9A89F3CB13BB668FD
8E0E91BEDA3CB721BBD836D768B09C, cn=RASHID KHAN
Date: 2023.06.28 19:40:19 +05'30'
